Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 30 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 30
  2. Negative: 14 out of 30
  1. 38
    For better and worse, the movie is more attractive and competently assembled than its schlock peers. That's refreshing, but it hardly excuses the appalling lack of suspense, intermittent tastelessness, or shockingly low camp quotient.
  2. Errors in logic will delight the attentive.
  3. Reviewed by: Josh Rosenblatt
    Who would have thought mass murder and cannibalism could be so dull?
  4. 30
    This Hannibal is a stick-in-the-mud altogether lacking in the wit, gourmet appetites and romantic flair required of any surrogate for Sir Anthony Hopkins. By the end of two full hours, it's only Harris' head you long to see on a plate.
  5. Reviewed by: Sam Adams
    Bad as Harris' Hannibal Rising screenplay (his first) is, at least it's an improvement on his dreadful book, streamlining its convoluted action and discarding large chunks of unspeakable dialogue.
  6. Reviewed by: Phil Vettel
    A sort-of combination of "Lambs," "Batman Begins" and "The Joy of Cooking," Hannibal Rising ostensibly dramatizes the atrocities that turned Hannibal Lecter from loving child to serial killer. But this film is larded up with so many food references that I'm undecided whether this story belongs in a film compendium or a recipe file.
  7. 25
    For the first time in the film series, Harris wrote the screenplay himself, which means the movie is practically identical to the book. In other words, they both stink.
  8. 25
    Dull and dreary prequel.
  9. 25
    The funniest movie of the year - a true laugh riot. Viewers will be holding their sides to contain the laughter. Forget Borat - if you're looking for something hilarious, this is the movie to see. What's that? It's not supposed to be a comedy. Oops.
  10. Not quite repellent enough to avoid tedium, Hannibal Rising is both too familiar in portraying Hannibal as a Dracula-like aristocrat monster, and crud in its exploitation of wartime atrocities.
  11. Hannibal Rising reduces this great creature of the pop imagination to a Eurotrash Boy Scout throwing a homicidal snit fit.
  12. Not just a bad film, Hannibal Rising is downright dull, which is a far worse crime.
  13. It's all quite a mess, with awkward performances, worse dialogue and a painfully protracted running time conspiring against any chance of enjoyment, even in a so-bad-it's-good guilty pleasure way.
  14. Silly, slack and unforgivably tedious, Thomas Harris's screenplay is padded with interminable flashbacks and a bombastic score that telegraphs every emotion Hannibal represses. And there are a lot of them.
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 78 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 30
  2. Negative: 12 out of 30
  1. Sep 29, 2011
    I thought about watching the whole Hannibal franchise. After watching "Hannibal Rising", I realized I should watch a different movie franchise that is NOT Hannibal. Full Review »
  2. Mar 2, 2014
    What the hell happened. The series was going so well until this piece of garbage came out. This movie was terrible. If you ever come across it in stores, just walk away don't even look at it. Full Review »
  3. Nov 13, 2013
    The movie is a tragedy of humanity, as if we evolved as a society, to see more and more of the same. Hannibal Lecter is a very unusually gifted, and perceptive individual. He has no role model in society, and he has been led to believe, that individuality won the Soviets the war, and people didn't depend on anyone, but themselves, winning the war. In his experience, his small adorable child of a sister, is killed by people, who feel that he and his sister are the cause of they killing them. How he wins to survive, seems to be how everyone felt, in Stalingrad, in Berlin, in London, and everywhere. Who won the war for the victors, small children like Hannibal, or Stalin, or Churchill?
    Hannibal can eat foie gras, and it seems that he is a cannibal, because he detests cannibalism, and perhaps he is condoning the perpetrators. He is asked by the associate of his sister's killer, whether he would feed the killer to his sister, but the associate forgets, that the killer gives the amulet that his victim wore, to his own daughter, and this means, he would have killed and eaten his daughter, in the circumstance, perhaps to Hannibal.
    This is what society means, and what it portends, to many like Hannibal. The world war is justified to create a world order, that would have existed in a different way anyway. There is no role model to Hannibal, and even for the leaders, who rule nations. The Second World war had people who had the attitude of Hannibal, but were prudent not to act similarly.
    Apparently, Hannibal negates all the bad and good that he does, he does good, if he does, to say that he is not associating himself, and he does bad similarly. He eats the frontal lobe, that part of the brain, which was removed by surgery, in the process of lobotomy, after he removes it, perhaps because he identifies the lobe in a certain way. It might be, that since he cannot perform lobotomy, he has to kill people to perform the procedure.
    Full Review »